Title

Monday, 1 September 2014

Justin Martyr and the 'Man of Men' Christology (Part 3)

This is the final installment of a three-part series on the 'man of men' Christology mentioned by Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho 48.4. In the first post we looked at the content of this Christology and that it regarded Jesus as the Christ but denied his virgin birth and pre-existent divinity. In the second post we looked at Justin's view toward the proponents of this doctrine. This was more difficult to determine. He has nothing positive to say about them, and describes it as a human doctrine as opposed to the teachings of the prophets and Christ himself. On the other hand he does not use the kind of strong language with which he denounces heresies elsewhere in the Dialogue. This leaves open the possibility that he regarded the proponents of the doctrine as fellow Christians in spite of their error.

We now turn to the third question we posed at the beginning of the series: how did Justin view the age and popularity of the ‘man of
men’ Christology relative to his own Christology?

a.Which does Justin regard as the older belief?

In Dave Burke's talk about second century Christianity (which was the impetus for this series), he tells his audience that "crucially, [Justin] admits that [the man of men Christology] is the older belief, which is very interesting."However, there is simply no evidence to support this claim. Furthermore, there is considerable evidence against it. Right in Dialogue 48.4 we see that Justin regards his own Christology (which affirms pre-existent divinity and the virgin birth) as something which had been taught by the prophets and Christ himself.

Justin Martyr elsewhere refers to the pre-existence of
Christ as something "we have been taught" (First Apology 46).1
References to what "we" have been taught are used frequently by
Justin to earlier Christian tradition, including even the words of Jesus (First
Apology 4; 6; 10; 12; 13; 14; 15; 17; 19; 23; 27; 32; 33; 44; 46; 67; Second Apology 4; Dialogue 18.1; 96.2-3; 118.3; 133.6). It is likely then that
Justin has here preserved an earlier tradition (probably dependent on
Colossians 1:15 or Hebrews 1:6) which takes πρωτότοκος (first-born) as an
indication of Christ's pre-existence.

As to the virgin birth, Justin refers in First Apology 33
to traditional material which is probably dependent on both the Matthean and
Lukan birth narratives.

We can also note here that within a generation of Justin
Martyr, Irenaeus could assert that the doctrine that the Son of God
"became incarnate for our salvation" was part of the faith
"received from the apostles and their disciples" (Against Heresies
1.10.1). So the Christians at this time regarded the doctrine of incarnation
as a tradition they had received.

There is no indication that Justin regarded himself as an
innovator of Christian doctrine. Dave’s statement that Justin admitted the ‘man
of men’ Christology is older than his own is without any basis.

b.Which does Justin regard as the more popular belief?

Dave does not comment on the relative popularity of Justin's Christology versus the 'man of men' Christology. There is, however, an intriguing (albeit difficult) statement which may be an acknowledgment of the popularity of the latter view in Justin's day. The Greek clause in 48.4 following Justin's expression of disagreement with the 'man of men'
doctrine (οἷς οὐ συντίθεμαι, οὐδ' ἂν πλεῖστοι ταὐτά μοι δοξάσαντες εἴποιεν) is
ambiguous and could be translated in two different ways, expressed by Bobichon
as follows:

Here is an English translation of the above (with thanks to
my friend Bernard Kengni for his assistance with the translation):

1) An opinion that I do not share with them, and would never share either, even
though the largest number of people who think like me should affirm the same
thing.

2) I
do not agree with them, and a very large number of people who think like me
would not agree to say so.

The matter largely hinges on whether we take οὐδε to
mean 'nor' or 'even if', both of which are syntactically possible. Importantly,
the syntax ἂν...εἴποιεν can be recognized as a potential optative. This means we have here a fourth class
condition, which "indicates a possible condition in the future, usually a
remote possibility."4 This suggests that, under
either translation, ‘affirm the same thing’ or ‘agree to say so’ is viewed as a
future possibility (perhaps an
unlikely future possibility) rather than a present
reality.

Hence, under the first translation, Justin would seem to be
saying that in the event that the majority
of Christians adopted this doctrine, he himself would not. Under the second
translation, Justin would seem to be saying that the majority of Christians, if presented with this doctrine, would
not agree with it. In neither case is Justin making an explicit statement about
the present popularity of the ‘man of men’ Christology.

Having said that, if the first translation is correct, one
might ask why Justin would concern himself even with the possibility of the
‘man of men’ Christology being the majority view unless it was already very
popular. Bobichon comments that the second translation suggests that Justin’s
view was more popular. Of the first translation, however, which he prefers, he
writes:

In support of this reading, Bobichon observes that Justin
proceeds to offer a justification for his admittedly ‘paradoxical’ view of
Christ’s origin. Paget, on the other hand, suggests that since Justin does not
devote much space in the Dialogue to these Jewish Christians (whom he equates
with the law-following Christians of chapter 47) they were “very much a
minority within the church.”6 He does allow that
Justin’s attitude of compromise, “particularly in relation to law-observing
gentile Christians, might imply a greater presence.”

Freyne likewise argues that “In Justin’s day, the Gentile
Christian movement initiated by Paul had become the dominant force” and the
Jewish Christian wing of the movement was in the process of being marginalized.7

I do not find Bobichon’s conclusion persuasive for several
reasons. Firstly, as noted above a fourth class condition denotes a future possibility (often a remote one) and not a current
reality. Secondly, Bobichon’s interpretation requires us to believe that Justin
regarded not only the divinity and pre-existence of Christ but also the virgin
birth as minority views in the second century church. However, Justin was very
familiar with Matthew's Gospel8 and probably Luke's,9 both of which plainly declare
the virgin birth. Justin's quotation concerning the virgin birth from the
Gospel traditions in First Apology 33 is probably dependent on both Matthew and
Luke. How likely is it that he could imagine the majority of Christians to be
in ignorance or rejection of these traditions?

Thirdly, while Justin does offer a justification for his
own view (an appeal to Scripture and the teachings of Jesus), he does the same
when upholding his own position against opposing views elsewhere (Dialogue 35;
80). This cannot be regarded as evidence for the popularity of the position he
opposes.

Fourthly, Justin's assertion that "There are some of your race..." (following the Parisinus manuscript reading as discussed in the previous post) suggests that this belief was limited to some of the Jewish Christians, who were a minority in the church by this time.10

Fifthly, Bobichon’s interpretation is only plausible if
his translation of the clause is correct, which is uncertain. He himself
acknowledges that both translations are possible. He cites three other scholars
who fully agree with him, and another two who agree less completely, on the
first translation. He also cites five scholars who favour the second translation.11

In summary, it is possible to interpret Justin as holding the
'man of men' Christology to be the majority view, and there is some scholarly
support for such a reading. However, there are also reasons to doubt it and it
must be judged at most uncertain, given the ambiguity of the Greek and the
hypothetical nature of the fourth class condition.

Conclusion

To conclude, we can set Dave’s interpretation of Dialogue
48.4 in contrast to a balanced view of the matter as follows.

·Whereas Dave depicts
the ‘man of men’ Christology simply as an affirmation of Jesus’ literal flesh-and-blood
humanity over against his pre-existent divinity, it in fact entailed rejection
or ignorance of the virgin birth, which he does not mention. Moreover, Dave implies that Justin himself denied Jesus’ literal flesh-and-blood mortal humanity, which he did not.

·Whereas Dave states
without qualification that Justin accepted those who held the ‘man of men’
Christology as Christians, Justin in fact expressed sharp disagreement with them
and accused them of teaching doctrines of men rather than those of the prophets
and of Christ himself. It is difficult to determine whether Justin regarded them as heretical or not.

·Whereas Dave states
without qualification that Justin acknowledges the ‘man of men’ Christology as
older than his own, there is in fact no evidence in Justin’s writings to
support this. While it is possible that Justin acknowledges the ‘man of men’
Christology as more popular than his own, this is again disputed.

I commend Dave on his efforts to educate young Christadelphians about the history of the patristic church. However, I hope that he will exercise greater objectivity in future lectures than he has shown in his treatment of this particular subject.

1 The specific statement is "We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of
God", but this is clearly made in contrast to the idea "that Christ was
born one hundred and fifty years ago" and thus indicates pre-existence.↩2 Bobichon, P. (2003). Dialogue avec Tryphon: Introduction, Texte Grec, Traduction, Vol. 1. Universite de Fribourg, p. 305.↩3 Bobichon, P. (2003). Dialogue avec Tryphon: Introduction, Texte Grec, Traduction, Vol. 2. Universite de Fribourg, p. 718 n. 11.↩4 Wallace, D.B. (1996). Greek Grammar beyond the basics:
an exegetical syntax of the New Testament. Zondervan, p. 699; cf. pp. 483-484.
For lack of a grammar covering the second century specifically, I assume the
function of the optative had not changed in the preceding century.↩5 Bobichon, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 718 n. 11.↩6 Paget, J.C. (1999). Jewish Christianity. In W.D. Davies et
al (Eds.), The Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. 3 (731-775). Cambridge
University Press, p. 750.↩7 Freyne, S. (2014). The Jesus Movement and Its Expansion: Meaning and Mission. Eerdmans, p. 339.↩8 Skarsaune, O. (1987). The Proof from Prophecy: A Study
in Justin Martyr's Proof-text Tradition: Text-type, Provenance, Theological
Profile. BRILL, p. 100.↩9 Skarsaune, O. op. cit., p. 386; Barnard, L.W. (1967).
Justin Martyr: His Life and Thought. Cambridge University Press, p. 63.↩10 Bobichon, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 718 n. 11.↩11 "By the turn of the [first] century the majority of Roman Christians were probably of Gentile background." (Kesich, V. (2007). Formation and Struggles: The Church, A.D. 33-450, Part 1. St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, p. 120. "By the time the deutero-Pauline Ephesians was written, the Jewish community was in the minority and was at risk of being marginalized by a powerful Gentile majority." (Roetzel, C.J. (2003). Paul, a Jew on the Margins. Westminster John Knox Press, p. 87).↩

No comments:

About

Welcome to the personal blog of Thomas Farrar. Content consists mainly of biblical studies, theology and Church history written at a semi-technical level.

About the author

I am a Canadian residing in Cape Town, South Africa. I was received into the Roman Catholic Church at the 2017 Easter Vigil, having previously been a Baptist and, before that, a Christadelphian. I am married to Ayanda and have two stepsons, Smiso and Sphe.A statistics lecturer by profession, I hold an Honours degree in theology and have published in peer-reviewed biblical studies journals. My curriculum vitae can be downloaded here. My hobbies include playing the euphonium, choral singing, reading and, of course, blogging.